Palin & McCain - Part 4

Alright, we now come to the third major argument that McPalin supporting Evangelicals will use to justify their decision vote for these candidates: We can look to exceptional examples (like Deborah, or Queen Esther) to justify female leadership in the civil realm, even though we dismiss Old Testament precepts.

As I said in the last post, you cannot throw out the rule and use the exception as your guide. It simply does not work. Rather, the exception should prove the rule, not destroy it.

In this case, the rule, as found in Scripture, is that men, and men only are to be leaders, both in the home, the church, and the civil sphere. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, like the example of the widow I gave in the last post. Nevertheless, the rule remains.

Now first, let's look at the example of Esther (now I could go off on a totally diferent subject about her, but I'm not, because if I did, I would never finish this post!). If you think about it, this example does not really make sense. As Dr. Einwechter (couldn't have done this thing without him!) states, "A queen is a king's wife, and normally the position of queen is not considered a political office. There is no indication that Esther excercised any ruling authority in Persia beyong the management of her own household and her personal influence over the king. The analogy of Esther actually applies to John McCain's wife, Cindy, and not Sarah Palin, his vice presidential choice."

Also, using examples of female rulers in history, is useless. Dr. Einwechter says, "... history is not a self-interpretive phenomenon, and the experience of history is not the final standard of faith and practice for Christians. Scripture is our only infallible standard of truth and the measure by which the facts of history must be interpreted. History presents us with examples of every kind of civil leader on can think of. There have been good female rulers and bad female rulers. What should we conclude from this in regard to the biblical doctrine of the civil magistrate and the role of women in the civil sphere? Nothing. 'To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them' (Isa. 8:20)."

Now onto Deborah. You know, these days it seems as if everyone supporting Palin introduces Deborah, as though this one example will win the debate. If two people are having a discussion about this whole issue, and one of them says, "Yeah, but what about Deborah?" the conversation is supposed to end. McPalin-supporting Evangelicals seem to think that exceptional, out-of-the-norm cases like Deborah, Queen Elizabeth, or Esther throw out the rule that Scripture has clearly mandated to us! That's not true! These abnormal (key word there) examples contradict a host of other passages in God's Word (see Palin & McCain - Part 2), and therefore cannot be our guides in selecting civil magistrates! In short, as Dr. Einwechter points out, "The example of Deborah no more proves that we ought to vote for a woman for civil office than the example of Abraham proves that a man shoud take his son to a mountain to sacrifice him to demonstrate his devotion to God, or the example of David proves that that a man may have more than one wife."

Now, I'm sure we could discuss the whole Deborah issue in much more depth, but for now we'll just keep it at that. For a more detailed commentary on this subject, I would recommend Dr. Einwechter's invaluable treatise, linked here.

So, to sum this whole thing up, we might ask, "Well then, who are we to vote for?" I think that if we look in Exodus 18:21, we can see a summery of what qualities should be found in a civil magistrate (or, in fact, any leader). In this pasage, Jethro is counseling Moses about who should be elected as judges for the people "Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness..."

So, a leader or civil magistrate should exhibit:

(1) - Ability. He should be one is able to execute all the duties which the office of leadership (of any form) require of him.

(2) - A fear of God. He should be a man who fears the Lord and walks in his precepts, relizing that the very office he holds was established by Him. We also need to realize that whenever we vote for someone who does not fear God, we are voting for a fool (Prov. 1:7; Psa. 111:10).

(3) - Truthfulness. He needs to be honest and truthful in all that he does. A liar or one who is decietful is not qualified for leadership.

(4) - A hate for covetousness. This means, as Doug Phillips said, that this man should not only dislike the idea of using his power to obtain wealth or gain gotten by unrighteous means, but he should hate it. And hate is a very strong word.

These form the basic outline of the qualities a leader should have. If the candidate for a civil office does not qualify in all of these points, he does not deserve the vote of a Christian. If neither of the candidates qualify (which seems to be the case in this upcoming election), then it is better to not vote at all, rather than vote against God's Word. And voting for the lesser of two evils is not an option either, because evil is still evil, and to cast your vote for evil is in contradiction with the Bible!

Before I wrap up, I would like to thank Dr. Einwechter for his awesome commentaries on this subject. His great posts were like a nucleus around which I could gather my thoughts. I also would strongly recommend (again) Doug Phillip's CD, "Biblical Principals in the Ballot Box". This CD is a must have! I've only skimmed the surface of the argument, but for those of you who want to study it further, this CD, and the articles by Dr. Einwechter (which can be found at Vision Forum's website under blog posts and hot topics) are essential. On a side note about the "lesser of two evils," look at www.baldwin08.com for an article about wasting your vote.

Persevero,

Scribe